Value of human life was never under
contention. We always knew, people will live no matter what. In every point of
view of society the best value is put on the human vitality. So much as we
justify the killing of every other species for the sake of our better living. Others
may perish, we must persist- the motto we live by. While the issue was vivid,
the reason behind it remained similarly shallow. I need to live, but why?
One and most common reason behind
this conviction is, people have intelligence which benefits the society and the
universe. Damn good reason. Do we really follow that?
There are people we already know
who have come to an age where they should have shown the symptoms of fruitful
intelligence. Yet they didn’t. In fact some of them even demonstrated already
how calamitous their actions can be. Surprisingly instead of killing them, we
let them live. Even often we are trying hard-doing activities to save them. E.g.
- all those protests to abolish death penalty. So after all it isn’t the
competency of brainpower that let us live so securely.
One will urge, ‘but you are missing
the immense potential they possess.’ May be I am, though I don’t want to. I
mean, I am all in for anything that’s the right path. I may be a bit obstinate,
but only because it feels obscure.
‘Potential’ by definition means -
having or showing the capacity to develop into something in the future. This
‘something’ must be intellect, as that is uniquely human. Since we are hopeful,
even after proven pernicious result of human brainpower; I assume the endeavor
to find this ‘future with fruitfully functioning brain’ will continue until
one’s demise. According to that, we should let every single person live until
death comes naturally. Wait a minute- the last line just gave me hysteria! In
this world, where barely any border left without war and killing spree, such
conjecture shall be considered mockery.
We inflict war regularly, calling
the opponent’s life (which is basically the same species) less potential and ours
more. What really determines the potentiality? Is it the extent of efficacy of
one’s intellect as mentioned before?
Among the opponent community, there
might be, and definitely are competent members of human race who will benefit
the universe. We are not hand picking them before killing them. You may argue
that’s because there is no proper way to measure the potentiality. If so then
how do we consider ‘less’ and ‘more’ potential, one has right to live while
another doesn’t? Where exactly the demarcation lies?
May I add at this point, that among
the war-monger community there are people with no budding future at all. With
due respect, I am talking about the mentally handicapped- the retards. Why are
they alive? Their brains aren’t functioning – no possibility to get benefit
from them in future. Then what ‘potential’ do they have over the opponents to
live?
While I am giving a respite to the
advocates of potentiality to ponder on a better argument to comeback, the
emotional supporters of life may get offended- ‘how can you hurt something innocent
who can feel pain?!’ Of course I don’t want to sound like a monster. I fully
believe and value the physical sensation one is to experience. They do have
lives, they do feel. But so do the weeds on your lawn, which you pick out
mercilessly.
Yes, I will also agree it’s the
intellect that gives us the upper hand. But the reason, my fellow species, is not
benevolence rather the opposite. We have the ‘Power’; not the power to create,
but the power to destroy others. We have the ability to eliminate whoever
possesses any kind of threat to our survival. This is the potential we have up
until now, and based on that we thrive.
And when we successfully restricted
the other species to our safety limit, we decided to fabricate opponents among
our own species. In the process we didn’t mind being surreptitious, selfish,
unfair to the other party. Because we can kill, so we do kill. Our action
reflects bigotry, yet when we are called bigot we don’t like that. We give our existence
a generous cause, even though the argument remains inconsistent. And we are
only sincere enough to call ourselves generous, not enough to do the
generosity.
